The Delhi High Court has ordered the Consortium of National Law Universities (Consortium) to announce revised results for the CLAT 2025 undergraduate exam that was held recently. This decision emerged following the Aditya Singh (Minor) vs Consortium Of National Law Universities case, where 17-year-old Aditya Singh approached the Delhi High Court and challenged the final answer key released by the Consortium on December 8, claiming errors in a few questions. He also requested a halt to the counseling process.A bench led by Justice Jyoti Singh instructed the consortium to amend two questions 14 and 100 found in Set A of the exam paper, stating that the mistakes were “demonstrably clear” and ignoring them would constitute an injustice to the candidates. In her 29-page ruling, Justice Singh also ordered the consortium to grant the benefit to all candidates who chose option C for question 14 in Set A and commanded the exclusion of question 100.The bench stated, “Accordingly, it is directed that the result of the Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 by the scheme of marking. Since the Court has upheld option 'C' as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, the benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option 'C”. Question No.100 will be excluded as correctly advised by the Expert Committee and the result will be accordingly revised.”The consortium, represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, argued that Singh's case lacked merit and that the objections he raised regarding the five questions had no basis in law. He requested the court to reject the petition based on territorial jurisdiction, claiming that the Consortium is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act of 1960, with a permanent Secretariat located in Bengaluru, Karnataka. The senior counsel further argued that its members included various National Law Universities (NLUs) and that no NLU within the court's jurisdiction was a member of the Consortium.The court rejected the consortium's challenge to its jurisdiction, stating that it lacked merit in its 29-page ruling.The court stated “Indisputably, Petitioner has attempted the online examination within the territorial boundaries of this Court, and the issues agitated before this Court concern alleged errors in the answer key pertaining to the said examination. Therefore, part of the cause of action, even though miniscule has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and merely because the permanent secretariat of the Respondent is located at Bengaluru in Karnataka, it cannot be argued that this Court has no jurisdiction.”